The case for a modern democratic humane socialism typically has two parts. The first is that capitalism is bad, at or least not very good. In reaching this conclusion, most have either analyzed a ...theoretical ideal-type of capitalism or used a single country, often the United States, as a stand-in for capitalism. To fully and fairly assess democratic socialism’s desirability, we need to compare it to the best version of capitalism that humans have devised: social democratic capitalism, or what is often called the Nordic model. Each chapter in this book examines one of the things that we should want in a good society, that contemporary democratic socialists typically say they want, and that socialism might, conceivably, improve our ability to achieve: an end to poverty in rich countries, an end to poverty everywhere, more jobs, decent jobs, faster economic growth, inclusive growth, more public goods and services, affordable healthcare for all, helpful finance, truly democratic politics, economic democracy, less economic inequality, gender and racial equality, more community, and a livable planet. The book offers a close look at the evidence about how capitalist economies have performed on these outcomes, with particular attention to the performance of social democratic capitalism. The second part of the case for democratic socialism is the notion that it would be an improvement. For each of these outcomes, the book considers what, if anything, we can conclude about whether democratic socialism would do better than social democratic capitalism.
Contents: Introduction -- Why should we care about inequality? -- Sources of equality and inequality : wages, jobs, households, and redistribution -- Measuring and analyzing employment performance -- ...Low-end wages -- Employment protection regulations -- Government benefits -- Taxes -- Skills -- Women-friendly policies -- Toward a high-employment, high-equality society.
One of the principal goals of antipoverty efforts should be to improve the absolute living standards of the least well-off. This book aims to enhance our understanding of how to do that, drawing on ...the experiences of twenty affluent countries since the 1970s. The book addresses a set of questions at the heart of political economy and public policy: How much does economic growth help the poor? When and why does growth fail to trickle down? How can social policy help? Can a country have a sizeable low-wage sector yet few poor households? Are universal programs better than targeted ones? What role can public services play in antipoverty efforts? What is the best tax mix? Is more social spending better for the poor? If we commit to improvement in the absolute living standards of the least well-off, must we sacrifice other desirable outcomes?
What configuration of institutions and policies is most conducive to human flourishing? The historical and comparative evidence suggests that the answer is social democratic capitalism — a democratic ...political system, a capitalist economy, good elementary and secondary schooling, a big welfare state, pro-employment public services, and moderate regulation of product and labor markets. Lane Kenworthy shows that this system improves living standards for the least well-off, enhances economic security, and boosts equality of opportunity. And it does so without sacrificing other things we want in a good society, from liberty to economic growth to health and happiness. Its chief practitioners have been the Nordic nations. The Nordics have gone farther than other rich democratic countries in coupling a big welfare state with public services that promote high employment and modest product- and labor-market regulations. Many believe this system isn’t transferable beyond Scandinavia, but Kenworthy shows that social democratic capitalism and its successes can be replicated in other affluent nations, including the United States. Today, the U.S. lags behind other countries in economic security, opportunity, and shared prosperity. If the U.S. expanded existing social programs and added some additional ones, many Americans would have better lives. Kenworthy argues that, despite formidable political obstacles, the U.S. is likely to move toward social democratic capitalism in coming decades. As a country gets richer, he explains, it becomes more willing to spend more in order to safeguard against risk and enhance fairness. He lays out a detailed policy agenda that could alleviate many of America’s problems.
We use data from the Luxembourg Income Study
to examine household market inequality, redistribution, and the
relationship between market inequality and redistribution in affluent OECD
countries in ...the 1980s and 1990s. We observe sizeable increases in market
household inequality in most countries. This development appears to have
been driven largely, though not exclusively, by changes in employment: in
countries with better employment performance, low-earning households
benefited relative to high-earning ones; in nations with poor employment
performance, low-earning households fared worse. In contrast to widespread
rhetoric about the decline of the welfare state, redistribution increased
in most countries during this period, as existing social-welfare programs
compensated for the rise in market inequality. They did so in proportion
to the degree of increase in inequality, producing a very strong positive
association between changes in market inequality and changes in
redistribution. We discuss the relevance of median-voter theory and power
resources theory for understanding differences across countries and
changes over time in the extent of compensatory redistribution.Lane Kenworthy is an associate professor in the
Department of Sociology at the University of Arizona
(lane.kenworthy@arizona.edu). Jonas Pontusson is a professor in the
Department of Politics at Princeton University (jpontuss@princeton.edu).
Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Conference of
Europeanists (March 2002), a workshop on the Comparative Political Economy
of Inequality at Cornell University (April 2002), the annual meeting of
the Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics (June 2002), and a
seminar at the Center for European Studies, Harvard University (December
2003). For criticisms and suggestions the authors thank Richard Freeman,
Janet Gornick, Alex Hicks, Torben Iversen, Larry Kahn, Tomas Larsson, Jim
Mosher, Nirmala Ravishankar, David Rueda, Tim Smeeding, John Stephens,
Michael Wallerstein, Christopher Way, Erik Wright, and the
Perspectives on Politics reviewers.
Rising income inequality has been a defining trend of the past generation, yet we know little about its impact on social policy formation. We evaluate two dominant views about public opinion on ...rising inequality: that Americans do not care much about inequality of outcomes, and that a rise in inequality will lead to an increase in demand for government redistribution. Using time series data on views about income inequality and social policy preferences in the 1980s and 1990s from the General Social Survey, we find little support for these views. Instead, Americans do tend to object to inequality and increasingly believe government should act to redress it, but not via traditional redistributive programs. We examine several alternative possibilities and provide a broad analytical framework for reinterpreting social policy preferences in the era of rising inequality. Our evidence suggests that Americans may be unsure or uninformed about how to address rising inequality and thus swayed by contemporaneous debates. However, we also find that Americans favor expanding education spending in response to their increasing concerns about inequality. This suggests that equal opportunity may be more germane than income redistribution to our understanding of the politics of inequality.
America is the one of the wealthiest nations on earth. So why do so many Americans struggle to make ends meet? Why is it so difficult for those who start at the bottom to reach the middle class? And ...why, if a rising economic tide lifts all boats, have middle-class incomes been growing so slowly? Social Democratic America explains how this has happened and how we can do better. Lane Kenworthy convincingly argues that we can improve economic security, expand opportunity, and ensure rising living standards for all by moving toward social democracy. Drawing on his extensive knowledge of social policy in America and other affluent countries, he proposes a set of public social programs, including universal early education, an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, wage insurance, the government as employer of last resort, and many others. Kenworthy looks at common objections to social democracy, such as the oft-repeated claim that Americans don't want big government, which he readily debunks. Indeed, we already have in place a host of effective and popular social programs, from Social Security to Medicare to public schooling. Moreover, the available evidence suggests that rich nations can generate the tax revenues needed to pay for generous social programs while maintaining an innovative and growing economy, and without restricting liberty. Can it happen? Kenworthy describes how the US has been progressing slowly but steadily toward a genuine social democracy for nearly a century. Controversial and powerful, Social Democratic America shows that the good society doesn't require a radical break from our past; we just need to continue in the direction we are already heading.
PDF
